On 19th attempt, damning COVID shot study finally published
When is the publication of a scientific study news itself? When the study concerned has been either rejected or withdrawn from no less than 18 scientific journals before finally finding a home.
As if you needed proof that they're hiding things from you
The study, which now appears in the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law journal, is titled: “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” and was conducted by a number of prominent scientists whose names will be familiar to those with a COVID-sceptic mindset — Nicholas Hulscher, Paul E. Alexander, William Makis, Harvey A. Risch, Peter A. McCullough, and others.
The authors describe their study in terms that make it clear how consequential they believe its findings are:
The largest COVID-19 vaccine autopsy study to-date, providing robust evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death...
Going, going too well, gone
The study first appeared in Preprints with The Lancet on July 5, 2023. As the name suggests, this journal features studies that have yet to undergo peer-review (for accuracy, clinical significance, etc.) and its purpose is to draw attention to important early-stage research. The study did indeed garner a great deal of attention — within 24 hours of appearing on the Preprints server, the abstract (a concise summary) had been viewed 124,947 times, and the entire study was downloaded 3,400 times.
It was then that the editors of the journal stepped in and removed the study from the web server, with the vague explanation that its conclusions “were not supported by the study methodology.”
This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria.
According to epidemiologist Nicholas Hulscher, one of the lead authors, the study had initially satisfied screening criteria, and he concluded that the journal’s behavior “raises grave suspicions of censorship.”
What followed was a series of attempts to find a new home for the study, throughout July, August, and September of 2023.
Number-one trending in the scientific world
Finally, the study was accepted by Forensic Science International (owned by the Elsevier publishing house) where it first appeared in print and online on June 21, 2024, after being peer-reviewed. There, just as in its previous journal, it garnered a huge amount of attention and within two weeks it had become the number-one trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas (according to the Observatory of International Research).
The study’s metrics reveal that it was in the 99th percentile of views and the top 5 percent of all research ever tracked by Altmetric. It was also an astonishing success for Forensic Science International, becoming its most read article ever by a factor of almost 100.
Going, going sensationally well, and gone again
Three weeks passed — and then Elsevier withdrew the study. In what one of the study’s authors calls a “flagrant violation of their own withdrawal policy,” not even the abstract of the study remains to be viewed.
Elsevier’s editors explained their decision as being due to inappropriate citation of references, inappropriate methodology, errors, lack of factual support for the conclusions, and failure to cite evidence pointing away from their conclusions. They claimed that they had been prompted to investigate the article — after it had passed professional peer-review — after receiving complaints from unnamed “members of the scientific community.”
The study’s authors composed and submitted a rebuttal of all the complaints, to no avail. Elsevier then sent the study to two other peer-reviewers who concluded that it was “not suitable for publication.”
If you can't join them, beat them
That was the picture on August 2, 2024. However, also in 2024, a new journal was established and named the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law journal. In November, it accepted the study for publication.
The experience of being targeted in a discriminatory manner and censored is familiar to many of those working for this new journal, who include Peter McCullough, Harald Walach, Aseem Malhotra, Paul Marik, Pierre Kory, Richard Urso, Retsev Levi, and Tess Lawrie.
Meanwhile, most of the major scientific publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the umbrella of the International Association of Scientific, Technical,and Medical Publishers. This group controls fully two-thirds of global journal publications, and has recently been sued in a class action lawsuit for alleged “tremendous damage to science and the public interest” due to the restrictions it places on which material reaches the public.
It is no secret that close to half of all medical journals have such close links to the pharmaceutical companies that they have problematic conflicts of interest. Furthermore, almost 60 percent of all peer-reviewers for the major medical journals have received substantial sums of money from the drug companies for a total of over $1 billion paid out — between 2020 and 2022 alone.
An end to $cience?
The Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law journal describes its mission as one of restoring integrity to scientific research by separating drug company money from the scientists researching their products:
To restore integrity in scientific research, it is imperative to disentangle funding from the scientists conducting studies. This can be achieved by creating an intermediary funding pool, where contributions from pharmaceutical companies, nutraceutical firms, and other entities are managed independently, preventing direct influence over research outcomes. This model would ensure that studies — whether on pharmaceutical products, natural supplements, or novel therapies — are conducted to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse events.
The editorial board stresses that science, especially in recent years, has descended into what they call “a misleading, artificial consensus,” and that restoring a genuine search for truth is something they seek to be part of:
Science, at its best, is a disciplined quest for truth — a systematic approach to understanding the universe through observation, experimentation, and reasoned debate. Unlike the adversarial nature of courtroom drama, where opposing sides battle for a verdict, science thrives in a space where ideas are rigorously tested against each other in a constructive, non-contentious manner. However, the practice of objective science has been increasingly compromised. Too often today, scientific discourse is shaped not by critical inquiry or empirical evidence, but by narrative enforcement via a misleading, artificial consensus.
Role of the public crucial
The business of publishing scientific research is a highly lucrative one — Elsevier’s CEO, Erik Engstrom, was the third highest paid CEO in the Netherlands during much of the past decade, earning over 30 million Euros. With such a concentration of power over which research sees the light of day, promoting and enforcing the “standard narrative” has perhaps never been easier, unless one goes back to the days when the Catholic Church suppressed the advance of science using the threat of excommunication to enforce its decrees.
Establishing a rival journal, small though it may currently be, could mark a turning point in the world of research. The editors of Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, in their editorial, appeal to the public to further their mission by reading, critiquing, and — perhaps most importantly — holding scientists to account.
As the landscape of science continues to evolve, the role of the public is becoming increasingly critical. The democratization of knowledge — fueled by digital access and the rise of citizen science initiatives — empowers the public to act as both critical consumers and active participants in scientific research. The public is now uniquely positioned to provide valuable feedback, identify flaws, suggest alternative interpretations, and hold researchers accountable.
The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.
